Wednesday, May 28, 2014

NPR's been deleting my comments

Say what you will about Gwen Ifill, she did answer a question of mine in a recent online chat. She could have ignored it.

NPR has a habit of ignoring.

My comments are being deleted.

I'm not the only one.

They're deleted because NPR doesn't like the opinions expressed.

They'll allow sexism but they won't allow an opinion they don't like.

So I'm trying to remember to copy and paste my comments here. It's like a little record of what NPR doesn't want discussed.

And it serves to demonstrate that this is not about 'foul' words or anything but their refusal to allow a discussion to take place.

For example, you can be sexist on NPR. But if you note sexism, as I did recently, you will be deleted. We had a lively conversation about the sexism of a critic who felt the need to trash various women in order to praise Tori Amos. It got deleted by NPR.

Ron Elving apparently doesn't read The New York Times. The big thing
about the speech today? I believe C.I. caught it at The Common Ills.http://thecommonills.blogspot...."We have removed our troops from Iraq." But they didn't all leave at the end
of 2011. And beginning in 2012, Barack sent a troop back in. At the
end of September 2012, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported, "Iraq and
the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in
the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training
missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General
Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."------------------That report was days before the October 2012 presidential debates started.It's
a shame NPR didn't note it on their programs or Ron Elving didn't
include it in his debate analysis. But the article -- on Syria --
exists and in the middle of it that information pops up.Caslen was at the speech today. He's out of Iraq now and in charge of West Point.Maybe Ron Elving could get around to asking Caslen about that unit of Special-Ops deployed to Iraq in the fall of 2012?If Elving can't do that, can he explain why NPR never covered Arango's rather important report?I'll
be reposting this at my own website since NPR's got a real problem --
as the ombudsperson has noted -- with deleting comments.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Barack lies about
Iraq in a speech, Barack gives up another carrot to Nouri, Nouri's War
Crimes continue, a call goes out to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to
step in and offer a political ruling, the US Shinseki is taking on water
at an alarming rate as Democratic senators begin calling for him to
step down, Rachel Maddow (and others) lie about Senator Richard Burr who
did not insult veterans, Maya Angelous passes away, and much more.

Let's start with lies in the US, lies from a leader and lies from a pack.

The leader? US President Barack Obama. He spoke at West Point today. Can you spot the lie?Good morning. Thank you, General Caslen, for that introduction. To
General Trainor, General Clarke, and the faculty and staff at West Point
-- you have been outstanding stewards of this proud institution, and
excellent mentors for the newest officers in the United States Army. I'd
like to acknowledge the Army's leadership -- Secretary McHugh and
General Odierno, as well as Senator Jack Reed -- a proud graduate of West
Point himself.To the class of 2014, I congratulate you on taking
your place on the Long Gray Line. Among you is the first all-female
command team: Erin Mauldin and Austen Boroff. In Calla Glavin, you have a
Rhodes Scholar, and Josh Herbeck proves that West Point accuracy
extends beyond the three point line. To the entire class, let me
reassure you in these final hours at West Point: as commander-in-chief, I
hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct
offenses. Let me just say that nobody ever did that for me when I was in
school.I know you join me in extending a word of thanks to your
families. Joe DeMoss, whose son James is graduating, spoke for many
parents when he wrote me a letter about the sacrifices you have made.
"Deep inside," he wrote, "we want to explode with pride at what they are
committing to do in the service of our country." Like several
graduates, James is a combat veteran. And I would like to ask all of us
here today to stand and pay tribute - not only to the veterans among us,
but to the more than 2.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and their families.It is a particularly useful time
for America to reflect on those who have sacrificed so much for our
freedom -- for you are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not
be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. When I first spoke at West
Point in 2009, we still had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq. We were
preparing to surge in Afghanistan. Our counter-terrorism efforts were
focused on al Qaida's core leadership. And our nation was just beginning
a long climb out of the worst economic crisis since the Great
Depression.Four and a half years later, the landscape has
changed. We have removed our troops from Iraq. We are winding down our
war in Afghanistan.

Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could
result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on
training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to
General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently
deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with
intelligence.
Some e-mail and say, "That's a story about Syria!" Yes, it is. Do I
need to spoon feed you, burp and wipe you? In the middle of the article
on Syria, Arango worked in that detail -- an earth shattering one. But
the Times either ignores reality or buries it deep in a story.

We included Barack's intro because it makes the lie even more appalling.
"Thank you, General Caslen"? It's the same General Caslen who spoke to
Arango.-- Robert Caslen. When he was put over West Point, the press
had yet another chance to cover the reality of US troops going back into
Iraq but they decided to take a pass. Again.

It's always interesting to see what the press will cover. They'll
ignore realities about Iraq but they will busy themselves with nonsense
and lies. Right now the TV idiots have spoken on one topic but, as
usual, they don't know a damn thing they're talking about. Rachel
Maddow is a liar. Bob Somerby has documented that repeatedly. I believe Rebecca nailed the liar long before Bob Somerby ever even knew her name. (Rachel's or Rebecca's.) And, of course, it is our own Elaine, committed to peace, who prompted Rachel's on air meltdown. Simply for asking why -- on the Unfiltered blog
-- Rachel kept bringing on this vet and that vet but never, ever a
veteran for peace, a veteran against the war? Elaine was actually being
kind. She honestly thought it was an oversight. It wasn't an
oversight. Rachel supported the Iraq War.

Point is, a lot of useless trash has a stink that wafts off them. It's no surprise the stink is back.

Rachel's b.o. spread on her show last night as she attacked Senator
Richard Burr for this and that including his blocking Tammy Duckworth's
nomination in 2009. She doesn't know why, Rachel says, but she wants
you to know he didn't serve in the military.

Rachel didn't serve either.

She forgets to note that.

I don't think you have to have served in the military to advocate for
veterans. I didn't serve. That doesn't mean I can't advocate for
veterans.

But Rachel has always tried to play manliest man in the room. No one
scratched their crotch and spat harder than Sgt Rachel. Hoo-ah!

Mike Michaud is the Ranking Member on the House Veterans Affairs
Committee. He didn't serve in the military so by Rachel's phantom penis
logic he shouldn't be on the House Committee.

I believe Bernie Sanders never served in the military. (I don't believe he did and his official bio makes no mention of serving in the military.)
He is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee so, by
Rachel's phantom penis logic, Bernie shouldn't be Chairing the Senate
Committee. The best Chair the Committee has had in the last ten years
was Senator Patty Murray and she didn't serve in the military.

And, let's remember, Barack didn't serve in the US military nor did Bill Clinton.

Military service isn't a pre-requisite for serving in Congress or serving on a Committee or the only measure of service.

Having dealt with that nonsense, let's move over to Rachel's claim that
Senator Richard Burr attacked veterans. In fairness to Rachel (who
never is fair to anyone else), many other outlets have also used that
'frame.' It's inaccurate. Burr issued a statement on Saturday:

To
the Nation’s Veterans,

Over
the course of the last few weeks, there has been a great deal of media
coverage—rightly so—of the still-unfolding story coming out of the Department
of Veterans Affairs regarding secret wait lists and other problems related to
appointment scheduling at VA facilities. Last week, the Senate Committee on
Veterans' Affairs heard from Secretary Shinseki, representatives of some of the
Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs), and others.

While a great deal of the media coverage of the hearing has focused on what
Secretary Shinseki said, and didn't say, much less has been seen of the
testimony of the VSOs that testified. I wanted to take a brief moment to
comment on that testimony.

First and foremost, I must recognize and commend the American Legion, National Commander
Dan Dellinger, and the American Legion team for taking a principled stand,
before the hearing and during it, and calling for leadership change at the VA.
It is clear that the Legion has been listening to its membership about the
challenges they face in gaining access to care, and has reached the conclusion
that "enough is enough" and the status quo is indefensible. The
Legion's membership has much to be proud of with the organization they support.

Regrettably, the Legion was alone among the VSOs that testified in taking such a
stand. It became clear at the hearing that most of the other VSOs attending
appear to be more interested in defending the status quo within VA, protecting
their relationships within the agency, and securing their access to the
Secretary and his inner circle. But to what end? What use is their access to
senior VA staff, up to and including the Secretary, if they do not use their
unprecedented access to a Cabinet Secretary to secure timely access to care for
their membership? What hope is there for change within the VA if those closest
to the agency don't use that proximity for the good of veterans across our
country?

I believe the national and local commanders of every VSO have the interests of
their members at heart, and take seriously their commitment to their members
and their organization. Unfortunately, I no longer believe that to be the case
within the Washington executive staff of the VSOs that testified. Last week’s
hearing made it clear to me that the staff has ignored the constant VA problems
expressed by their members and is more interested in their own livelihoods and
Washington connections than they are to the needs of their own members.

I
fear that change within the VA will not be possible unless and until these organizations
also reconsider their
role as well as the nature of their relationship with VA.

Sincerely,

Richard
Burr

United
States Senator

That is not an attack on veterans.

It is a critique of VSO leaders.

He can do that.

He felt the VSOs failed and he said so.

He's allowed to do that.

I criticize VSOs re: Congress all the time here.

It's not a slam on veterans.

Forget any specifics of the argument. Are VSOs too polite to Congress?

Yes.

That's only controversial if you want to make it controversial.

IAVA has the best standing right now but is that because it's still a
new group? When new leaders emerge in the group will they tone down
some of their speaking?

Possibly.

(I don't toss my personal life out there but I'm currently sleeping with
a board member of a VSO. That's all the disclosure prying eyes will
get. But factor that into what follows if you need to.)

When I cover a Veterans Affairs Committee hearing -- House or Senate -- I
don't usually note the VSOs unless it's a legislative hearing. I cover
the first panel. The second panel? If it pops up in the second day of
coverage, it's because a veteran friend calls and says, "Hey, the point
____ was making was important and you should think about including it."

Burr's correct, the VSOs are too respectful.

(Equally true, though I don't consider myself to be the media, it is
true we report on the VA hearings in Congress as many Committee members
know. Burr's comment about what got covered in reporting could be a
critique of my own work. He could be finding fault with it. If it was
and he is, he's correct.)

In the past few years, they've had good relations with Committee members
(House and Senate). But it's also true that they're pretty much
addressing the same problems over and over, year after year, the VA
stalls and blocks or says it will address and doesn't.

If the Senate had a functioning Chair right now -- no, Bernie is not
doing a good job -- the Committee would have issued a list of actions
they have passed and the VA has still not acted on. That's actually a
rather long list.

Rachel wouldn't know about that or anything else that her staff didn't clip for her to read.

Richard Burr?

He can be a real ass.

That's why Kat
loves him. He doesn't float along with the crap the way so many do.
He is loud, he is critical. He uses those attributes to try to help
veterans and their families.

The statement he released was perfectly in keeping with Burr.

I have heard no outcry over the statement from veterans. Yes, VSO leadership is offended. Oh well.

They issued statements denying Burr's assertion. They would have served
the membership better by issuing statements which read, "While we
strongly disagree with Burr's conclusions we will consider them."

Instead, what you saw was tantrums by VSO leadership at various
organizations. And maybe that's a good thing as they threaten they will
stop being so nice?

Burr congratulates The American Legion. Let's use them as an example
then. When they gave their annual presentation to both veterans
committees, I called them and their new leader out. And I have done
with others and will always do so. And, no, my pointing out that issues
related to women veterans are being ignored in presentations by VSOs
is not me attacking veterans.

Burr offered a critique. He takes the issue very seriously.

If you're bothered by it, you should call him out. You should mock him, ridicule him, do whatever. But why do you have to lie?

Are your reasoning skills so insufficient that you can't make a case
without lying? Or is lying just second nature for you at this point?

If you think that they did, then that's your argument and you should
make it. But you're lying when you say that Burr attacked veterans. He
did no such thing. He spoke out because he believed the veterans were
not being served properly or well by VSO leaders before Congress on May
15th (with the exception of the American Legion).

You could even go to the media critique he offered. But then you'd have
to acknowledge whether or not you actually covered that hearing and
Rachel Maddow and her ilk did not cover it. We covered it here.
Speaking for me, again, Burr's correct. I did not cover the VSOs. I
didn't find them to be important in that hearing or worth covering. My
first day of coverage was of the first panel (Shinseki) and my second
day was acknowledging my judgment call on the Committee itself had been
wrong. That resulted from lengthy conversations with five veterans who
were at the hearing. And not one of those veterans said to me, "You
know there's a point from the second panel that you should note." (The
second panel was the VSOs.)

Why lie about Burr?

They're attacking Burr -- Rachel and her pack of liars -- because they
want to make it about Burr and not about Eric Shinseki. Eric's the
Secretary of the VA. They've done a lot of rescuing of him. The
playbook says don't call it a "scandal" and attack Bully Boy Bush.

It doesn't make a lot of sense. Shinseki's been VA secretary since early 2009. And it is a scandal. Chelsea J. Carter (CNN) reports today:At least 1,700 military veterans waiting to see a doctor were never
scheduled for an appointment and never placed on a wait list at the
Veterans Affairs medical center in Phoenix, raising the question of just
how many may have been "forgotten or lost" in the system, according to a
preliminary report made public Wednesday. Describing a
"systemic" practice of manipulating appointments and wait lists at the
Phoenix Health Care System, the VA's Office of Inspector General called
for a nationwide review to determine whether veterans at other locations
were falling through the cracks.

In response to that news, US House Rep Jeff Miller, Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, issued the following:

For more information, contact: Curt Cashour, (202) 225-3527

May 28, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Following the release of the VA Inspector General’s interim report on VHA patient wait times, Chairman Jeff Miller released the following statement:“Today the inspector general confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt
what was becoming more obvious by the day: wait time schemes and data
manipulation are systemic throughout VA and are putting veterans at risk
in Phoenix and across the country. Right now, there are two things that
need to happen. Attorney General Eric Holder should launch a criminal
investigation into VA’s widespread scheduling corruption and VA
Secretary Eric Shinseki should resign immediately. Shinseki is a good
man who has served his country honorably, but he has failed to get VA’s
health care system in order despite repeated and frequent warnings from
Congress, the Government Accountability Office and the IG. What’s worse,
to this day, Shinseki – in both word and deed – appears completely
oblivious to the severity of the health care challenges facing the
department. VA needs a leader who will take swift and decisive action to
discipline employees responsible for mismanagement, negligence and
corruption that harms veterans while taking bold steps to replace the
department’s culture of complacency with a climate of accountability.
Sec. Shinseki has proven time and again he is not that leader. That’s
why it’s time for him to go.” Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

We should remember that the 14 days issue (VA medical centers pretending
they were meeting 14 days for appointment scheduling), which they try
to avoid in their 'coverage,' is not a Bully Boy Bush creation. It's
Eric Shinseki.

But it's probably over for Shinseki. On Don Lemon's CNN program Newsroom, the last segment was a discussion about an unnamed White House official saying Shinseki was on "thin ice."

Looks like fate decided to take a bar of soap to Rachel Maddow's trashy
mouth. Today, US Senator Mark Udall became the first Democratic senator
to call for Shinseki to step down. His office issued the following:

Where's Socialist Bernie Sanders who thinks his ass stands a chance in a Democratic Party presidential primary?

We're not noting his ridiculous statement.

He issued one.

[Deleted before this posted because I'm trying to be kind. But piss me
off much more on this and I'll out the little cabal pimping Bernie.]

. . .

And he's going to be a joke to the country as he tries to pretend he has
the character to run for president when he doesn't even have the spine
to stand up on any issue. He's failed veterans. It's time Democrats
replaced him with a real Democrat.

When Al Franken and the others are leading the charge for Shinseki to step down, Bernie Sanders should be as well.

The revival in Iraqi oil output has
stalled. Again. Production forecasts for 2014 are getting less optimistic.
The Oil Ministry’s official target is 4 million barrels a day by
the end of the year. More likely it will be 3.75 million, Thamir
Ghadhban, an adviser to the prime minister, said in an interview
May 14. Or perhaps 3.4 million, about the same as last month,
according to the average of six analyst estimates compiled by
Bloomberg News.

Nouri can't even keep the oil flowing.

Aswat al-Iraq notes
KRG President Massoud Barzani met Monday "with Ahemd al-Jerba,
anti-Syrian Chairman of the Syrian National Alliance, in Paris" and
stated the Kurds would not support a third term as prime minister for
Nouri al-Maliki and that the Kurds "will not remain in a government
headed by Premier Maliki and will exert efforts with other parties to
find a real partner to head the coming federal government." Iraq
concluded parliamentary elections April 30th.
Nouri failed at his effort to win enough seats to form a majority
government. Now he is among those scrambling to be named prime
minister-designate. NINA reports
that Mohammed Karbouli (Mottahidoon Coalition MP) stated his coalition
will be in talks with the National Alliance to agree on who to nominate
for prime minister. The Mottahidoon Coalition is headed by the current
Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi. All Iraq News reports the coalition has formed a committee "to negotiate with the other blocs over the formation of the next government." Alsumaria reports
that al-Nujaifi is calling on the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to
weigh in on the issue, stating is of huge importance to the country and
that the principle of a third term for anyone should be rejected. Alsumaria notes he's put the request into writing. Alsumaria also reports that Ayad Allawi is calling for a coalition that will put together a partnership government.

Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) reports
on rumors that the Kurds in the PUK (Patriotic Union of Kurdistan) and
Goran are on board with Nouri. The big winner in provincial elections
and parliamentary elections combined was the KDP (Kurdistan Democratic
Party). Goran had a strong showing in the provincial elections
upsetting and the PUK is on shaky ground since their leader (Jalal
Talabani) has been AWOL from Iraq for over a year and a half. Despite
the rumors, Rudaw reports
the PUK's Adnan Mufti states the PUK and KDP (two of the main Kurdish
parties) agreed to present a united front on the issue of the "formation
of the next Iraqi government." He also states they are a united front
on the issue of oil.

Despite generating tremendous oil revenues and despite it being the
fifth month of 2014, the KRG has received no federal funds from Baghdad
for the year -- has still received no funds. Nouri's attempted to use
these funds to blackmail the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional
Government. Possibly, as a result of this, last week, the KRG supplied Turkey with oil. There is no oil and gas law in Iraq.

Yes, another Nouri failure.

The US government installed the puppet in 2006 and made clear that he
was being named prime minister in part to get the oil and gas law
passed.

Nouri failed. Throughout his first term, he failed. The US government secured him a second term. He failed again.

Eight years of failure.

Business can't wait for Nouri to figure out how to pass a law, workers
can't wait for Nouri to figure out how to pass a law. The Kurds decided
they wouldn't wait.

World Bulletin notes
that Barzani told the Parliament that, "We are open to dialog and
negotiations with Baghdad but we want 17 percent from the Iraqi budget.
Baghdad acted unconstitutionally by cutting our share of the
governmental budget. Oil sales are transparent and appropriate
according to the constitution." He also declared the KRG's intent "to
export half a million barrels of oil every day to the global markets by
the end of the year." All Iraq News adds:

"The decision to cut the salaries and entitlements of staff of
the region was issued by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as well as delay
sending the territorial budget before we export crude oil to Turkey,"
noting that there is no guarantee of sent the region's budget again and
the salaries of the staff of the region amounting to 850 billion dinars a
month did not reach them, and Baghdad has sent 10% of the budget of the
region not 17%," he concluded.

Nouri's failures as prime minister are at every turn.

While all eyes focus on who might end up prime minister, the first spot to fill is president of Iraq. Rudaw notes
the PUK is said to want Barham Salih, Najmaldin Karim or Fuad Masum for
the post. It is considered a given that the president must be a Kurd.
It is not a given, though. In 2010, US Vice President Joe Biden tried
to talk Jalal Talabani into stepping down so that Ayad Allawi could be
president. Allawi is a Shi'ite. His Iraqiya had won the most votes but
the US government wanted Nouri to be prime minister. This was one of
their efforts to ensure that happened. Jalal refused Biden's request
and made it very clear that he found the suggestion to be insulting.

Jalal can't seek a third term as president. In December 2012, he suffered a stroke. The incident took place late on December
17, 2012 following Jalal's argument with Iraq's prime minister and chief thug Nouri al-Maliki (see the December 18, 2012 snapshot). Jalal was admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital. Thursday, December 20, 2012,
he was moved to Germany. He remains in Germany currently. Even were
his health not in question, the presidency is limited to two terms (and a
close reading of the Iraqi Constitution could make a case that this
same ban applies to the post of prime minister). The PUK wants it to go
to someone in their political party. Other names floated, outside the
PUK, include KRG President Massoud Barzani.

Turning to violence, AFP reports, "Shelling in the militant-held city of Fallujah, a short drive west of
Baghdad, killed three more people, a day after New York-based Human Rights Watch
criticised the Iraqi government for possibly violating the laws of war
by shelling the city's main hospital." We noted Human Rights Watch's "Iraq: Government Attacking Fallujah Hospital" yesterday and will note it again this week but right now, with Nouri's War Crimes in mind, note another event.

Executive Order: Ending Immunities Granted
to the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Iraqi Property and
Interests in Property Pursuant to Executive Order 13303, as Amended

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

ENDING IMMUNITIES GRANTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR

IRAQ AND CERTAIN OTHER IRAQI PROPERTY AND INTERESTS IN

PROPERTY PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 13303, AS AMENDED

By the authority vested in me as
President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of
America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as
amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.),
section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act, as amended (22
U.S.C. 287c) (UNPA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the
United States of America, have determined that the situation that gave
rise to the actions taken in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, to
protect the Development Fund for Iraq and certain other property in
which the Government of Iraq has an interest has been significantly
altered. Recognizing the changed circumstances in Iraq, including the
Government of Iraq's progress in resolving and managing the risk
associated with outstanding debts and claims arising from actions of the
previous regime, I hereby terminate the prohibitions contained in
section 1 of Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, as amended by
Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004, on any attachment, judgment,
decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process with
respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and Iraqi petroleum, petroleum
products, and interests therein, and the accounts, assets, investments,
and other property owned by, belonging to, or held by, in the name of,
on behalf of, or otherwise for, the Central Bank of Iraq. This action is
not intended otherwise to affect the national emergency declared in
Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, as expanded in scope by Executive
Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, which shall remain in place. This
action is also not intended to affect immunities enjoyed by the
Government of Iraq and its property under otherwise applicable law. I hereby order: Section 1. The prohibitions set forth
in section 1 of Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, as amended by
Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004, are hereby terminated. Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to
take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations,
and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA and the UNPA
as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The
Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other
officers and agencies of the United States Government. All agencies of
the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate
measures within their statutory authority to carry out the provisions
of this order. Sec. 3. This order is not intended to,
and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States,
its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or
agents, or any other person. Sec. 4. This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

Why would you do that?

Nouri wants that.

He wants that very badly. Just like he wanted the United Nations to move Iraq out of Chapter VII.

That's what's known as a carrot or an incentive.

Why would you just give it away?

Nouri wants it? Make him earn it. Tie it into the bombing of civilians
in Falluja, for example. 'Nouri, we'd love to do this but we can't if
you're killing civilians.'

The reason 'the stick' is so often used by this administration isn't
just because it's filled with War Hawks, it's also because they're too
stupid to understand the carrot approach.

They've already tossed out the diplomatic toolbox, now they're throwing away the carrots.

Baghdad, 27 May 2014- The Special Representative of the United
Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG), Mr. Nickolay Mladenov
presents his congratulations to Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, this year’s winner of
the George Orwell Prize for Journalism. “Gaith Abdul-Ahad was
distinguished by the Orwell Prize Jury for his coverage of the conflict
in Syria, more particularly his compassionate writing about those whose
lives were destroyed by the conflict”, Mr. Mladenov said.

“I hope this well-deserved prize to a highly regarded Iraqi
journalist will be an inspiration for all his colleagues, especially
here in Iraq, who continue, despite the numerous difficulties they face,
to display the highest standards of professionalism in performing their
daily work”.

Maya Angelou's signature book, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,
burst upon the American literary landscape in 1969, becoming an
immediate bestseller. It has retained its position as a treasured work
in the past 36 years, capturing the loyalty of successive generations of
readers, remaining a constant recourse for those who early on were
enraptured by its story of a girl growing up in rural Arkansas amid the
tensions of America’s black-white divide. Her memoir is a narrative of
the ability of the human spirit to surmount adversity.The title of the book comes from the poem “Sympathy” by the late
19th-century poet known as the poet laureate of African-Americans, Paul
Laurence Dunbar. The poem is a meditation on the struggles of a bird to
escape its cage, an analogy frequently invoked to describe an oppressed
people. It also speaks to the supposed contradiction of the bird singing
in the midst of its struggle.Angelou became a member of the Harlem Writers Guild a decade before Caged Bird
was written, but her focus had been poetry and drama. The book grew
less out of the literary ambitions of its author than out of her
marvelous skills as a raconteur. So profoundly did these impress her
friend James Baldwin that he urged her to write an account of her
childhood in Stamps, Arkansas. At first she resisted, not wishing to
interrupt her poetry or playwriting, but challenged by the hint that
perhaps she lacked the skill to transpose her scintillating oral
narration to print, she produced Caged Bird.

But her biggest splash back into music came alongside R&B legends
Ashford and Simpson soon thereafter. The poet invited the duo to her
home in Winston-Salem, N.C. for Thanksgiving 1994 after
dancer/choreographer George Faison introduced them. During the meal,
Nick Ashford decided to "mess around" with a piano in the basement. "I
told Val to play piano and Maya to add something" Ashford told Billboard
in 1996. "We started singing and something stared to happen - and they
didn't know I had a tape recorder going underneath the piano." Angelou
got "so excited," at the resulting snippet (which turned into the song
"I Remember All"), that the collab quickly developed into an entire
album.1996's "Been Found" includes Angelou appearing with Ashford &
Simpson on seven of the 11 songs. The album, which also heralded the
launch of the duo's Hopsack and Silk label, was responsible for
Angelou's first and only three Billboard chart appearances. It reached
No. 49 on Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums. Single "Been Found" hit No. 80 on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, while "What If" notched a No. 94 placement on the same tally.

"And So It Goes," Maya's collaboration with Roberta Flack, first appears on Roberta's Oasis album:

Love is a rush of wild wind;
The scent of a summer rose
A whistle blowing on a distant track
and when it goes, it goes

Take your heart where it longs to be
I won't bind you to a memory
I know if I wait,
it will happen to me oh ho